October 28, 2011

The NYT has a column quoting various pundits puzzling until their puzzlers are sore over the mystery of Herman Cain's rise to the top of the GOP presidential polls. How can some random corporate executive emerge from nowhere?

It's almost as mysterious as how some random state legislator / part time law school lecturer can rise to the White House in a few years. Maybe Cain and Obama have something in common? It's crazy to think that, I know, but there's something about the two of them that seems similar. But what could it be?

117 comments:

I tend to believe that Cain is just getting his turn being vetted in this poor GOP field. I don't think Bachmann got traction because she is a woman. It's like a woman testing out a group of ho-hum suitors. She'll give them a whirl and then move on to the next. In the end she'll run back to the Plastic Alpha (Mitt Romney).

Cain did not emerge from nowhere. He has built a solid record in the business world. By that I mean he has been in positions where all the affirmative action in the world would not cover mistakes. He has also been on radio for a few years. None of this is "out of nowhere". I also don't think the man would hide his school transcripts, and that someone can be found who remembers him back then.

Obama, on the other hand, DID come from nowhere; no one knows who he is.

Obama didn't win the election because he was black. The Democrats could have nominated a volunteer fireman from White Plains, NY and beaten the McCain/Palin ticket back in 2008.

But Republicans don't think the disastrous Bush administration had anything to do with the Dem win and think being black is a secret weapon to winning any election. Hence, Herman Cain.

Herman Cain is probably one of the least electable Republicans simply because his campaign is so badly organized, but if you polled Republicans they would probably say he was the most electable.

Terrified Republican consultants are going to rally like crazy behind Romney and push him over the finish line once reality sets in, but Cain is going to do pretty well. I would bet he's going to win Iowa.

What's been amazing is to watch every liberal pundit, white and black, call him an Uncle Tom.

I've a black male friend, whose background is much more similar to Cain's than to Obama's. He's done okay for himself and has a nice state pension retired since he was 55. He's a really religious guy too, yet he calls Cain a Tom and says to me, "But Obama is just sooooo bright, went to Harvard, yada, yada, yada."

When I ask him if he thinks Obama ever had any life experience that made him likely to be a good leader in ANY way, he just keeps saying, "He's smart and Cain is dumb."

I think this guy proves what loathing of one's race is all about. I pointed out to him that Obama is more non-black than black and that he certainly had a childhood and young adulthood that more closely paralleled that of an elite white, but then I realized that my friend really does prize the non-black more than the black as long as the non-black wears black-face.

Herman Cain actually has/had a fairly large following for his radio show. He was on one of the most popular conservative radio networks, well at least in Georgia, not sure about the rest of the country.

I'd say he was significantly more well-known than Obama before he went for the presidency.

From a previous commenter:"Herman Cain's record at Godfathers is debunked convincingly here. I happen to know (from earlier comments by the author) that Part 2 will argue that Pillsbury "promoted" Cain from being in charge of 400 Philadelphia Burger Kings to being head of Godfathers as part of a strategy to defend itself against a racial discrimination suit (Mabone v. Pillsbury Co.)."

I'm reminded of the mayoral race in "A Man in Full". Do you think Obama starts playing more golf? Watch for some tanning and slight fro growth. Also Michelle will be everywhere all the time to shore of the black credentials of Barry.

Actually it would be pretty funny to see these two compete for blackness, on the other hand such a race would be so ridiculous. Tom Wolfe could dream this stuff up.

"It's crazy to think that, I know, but there's something about the two of them that seems similar. But what could it be?"

"Answer: It was all about race.

Race isn’t the only reason Obama edged out John McCain and Hillary Clinton. But it’s the main reason why an obscure state legislator wound up in the White House before enough people noticed he wasn’t all that bright.

To understand the mania of 2008, imagine some island tribe whose shamans have been telling them for years that all their troubles are due to the volcano gods being angry. The solution, obviously, is to throw a virgin into the volcano.

Obamamania was the mirror image. The witch doctors in the schools and the MSM had been telling us for decades that our troubles are caused by white racism. Then Obama comes along and volunteers to graciously exorcise the demons of racism for us by allowing himself to be cast into the White House."-Steve Sailer

Regarding HeerMann Cain, I think that one groupthink Republican idea is to run him for VP, with Mittens getting the top job.

The idea is that more palefaced "swing" voters will vote Repub with Herman on the ticket.

Either that, or the Republican hive mind has no intention of voting for Herman, and Herman C. will sink in the primaries. It's all just a show to show that Repubs. don't have a racist bone in their bodies, honest, 'cuz they almost not quite voted for Herbie in the primaries, so that Republicans -- i.e., heterosexual Christian or post-Christian white peepul, can feel good and congratulate thmeselves.

Karl Rove on TV last night pointed out that Rudy G. was leading the Republican race this many months ahead of the 2008 election, then Rudy went nowhere.

The interesting thing here is the hive mind or unplanned mass conspiracy angle.

I don't think many Africkan-Americans will or would vote Repub., even if Herman were at the top of the ticket. Mexicans here in Greater Yugoslavia are even less likely to turn out for a black man.

... And enquiring minds wonder if Donald Trump or Ron Paul will do the 3td party thing. I have some image advice for GrandDaddy Ron: he ought to grow a goatee ( more accurately, what they used to call a Van Dyke beard? ) and wear a 19th century frock coat and cravat with upturned collar.

This outfit to be somewhat suggestive of a Confederate officer's uniform, while avoiding overt displays of insignia or weapons. Personally, I'd prefer R.P. photographed holding an authentic Civil War weapon, although that might be a bit too much for the voting public.

Or maybe Ole Ron ( "The individual is everything. The individual is far more important than any government." ) is too much the closet Lefty anarchist* and hippie for that.

Almost any suit jacket would be an improvement over the coat R.P. usually wears on TV, which sags at least three inches away from the side of his shirt collar.

"but there's something about the two of them that seems similar. But what could it be?"

Oh come on Stephen, that is totally obvious: They're both men who dreamed big, refused to obey silly "traditions", and aspired to be powerful on an international level -- as opposed to having aspired to writing a blog about them.

Are you kidding? Fox interviews him all the time; the MSM talk happily about the proposal that he run a third party candidacy in the general because they figure that would absolutely insure an Obama victory just as Perot insured a Clinton one.

This time around Paul has gotten a lot of attention, but as much as people might like some of his statements on domestic policy (get rid of certain departments of the federal government, they reject his total isolationism as folly. They understand too that he's already 76.

I would think that the increasingly bitchy True Scotsmen "better dead than -R" commentoids would at least recognize that pizza is a distant line on Cain's cv. How about: board member of Aquila Energy Corp? Which dovetails w/ the Kansas City Fed position of course. He's rich, ergo important. The fast-food knock only plays with advanced-degree-obsessed groupies of Rachel Maddow and Liz Warren.

Now, Cain is not exactly Ike, or Nelson Rockefeller, or even Gerald Ford, in honor of one of the more incoherent zingers that appeared above. Though seemingly semi-competent he undoubtedly advanced due to the Republican rendition of affirmative action, as a prop in the status war w/ liberals. He's a damned radio host, the pinnacle of social and material achievement in the eyes of most of the GOP base. And yet the twits cry, "Pizza"

The reason I think Cain has no real organization is that he never figured he'd get this far. I think he was/is like Newt and even Santorum--angling to get his name out there and see what opportunities open up, like Huckabee. I think he saw himself possibly landing a VP nomination.

I'll even go so far as to say I think Cain doesn't really want to be Prez, but would like VP, thus his friendliness to Romney.

I think a Romney would be good for a country that is so split right now.

To elect someone on the far right will just cause the LEFT to act out for 4 years as the RIGHT has with Obama.

Besides, I like the notion of someone who does want business to succeed so that there's a chance that success will bring back some jobs.

There are horses for courses and there are times for a certain kind of President. We don't need an ideologue this time out. We need someone who actually will invite the other side into the Oval Office and try to establish communication and common goals.

Those culture warriors who think a President can turn the clock back on some things are crazy.

The one thing a Pres can do that will affect those cultural things (while keeping his fingers crossed that the appointee will rule as expected) is appoint people to SCOTUS.

I do believe if Romney were elected, he'd bend to pressure from the right to appoint someone who was at least viewed as a bit to a lot right of center.

Southern Evangelical Christians will never vote for a Mormon. I know these people, I grew up around them, I know how they think. They will not vote Romney. From the looks of things, Christians in the Mid-West aren't biting either.

Putting Romney on the ticket will be electoral suicide. Trust me on this.

If Cain is beating Romney among conservatives in South Carolina, the heart of the Confederacy, that should tell you that something is up. Why do you think they preferred John McCain, one of the most liberal Republicans, to Romney in 2008?

D J said:Cain did not emerge from nowhere. He has built a solid record in the business world. By that I mean he has been in positions where all the affirmative action in the world would not cover mistakes.

Cain's success is being Black. Nominating the Black guy is "the secret weapon" against the charge of racism for opposing Barack Obama. We'll see you your Black guy and raise you OUR Black guy, in other words.

Said Black guys signifying evolved, high moral status and the like. Its a very feminine play. "I'm more moral than you." Guys tend to emphasize power/accomplishments. Putin or Edmund Hillary. Women generally want to be loved, while men generally want to be feared and respected. Hence the Republicans figuring they better fight Obama's status-mongering advantages with their own.

IMHO, that's a dumb play. Better to scare people with "Vote Obama and end up in the streets, he'll do to the US what Dinkins did to NYC."

but as much as people might like some of his statements on domestic policy (get rid of certain departments of the federal government, they reject his total isolationism as folly.

That's pretty funny, since Paul's foreign policy views are so damn sensible (he was the only presidential candidate who had a problem with President Obama ordering the assassination of US citizens) but his domestic policy positions (more or less abolish the federal govt and go back to the gold standard) are just weird.

"I have some image advice for GrandDaddy Ron: he ought to grow a goatee ( more accurately, what they used to call a Van Dyke beard? ) and wear a 19th century frock coat and cravat with upturned collar. "

You leave him alone! Ron Paul looks like the old cool bad guy from X-men.

It's not the existence of the anti-Cain ire on the right that confuses me, it's the tenor. I understand the strategic criticisms. But some people act deeply offended that he's in the conversation. Unless you're a consultant for one of the other Republicans: why? There's a long history of stuff with no obvious merit becoming unaccountably popular in this country. Just look at those cheapie Paranormal films. Cain's success is proof of major GOP loathing of Romney (distinct from Ron Paul supporters, i.e. not living in swing states and not supporting the eventual nominee anyway). He'll either fizzle or he won't. I'd rate him slightly better than even to beat Obama if it were today (2-way races only of course)

Cain's got nothing to prove, which differentiates him from clear AA cases like Michael Steele, though it draws a disturbing parallel to Schwarzenegger. I'm sure there is an internal logic behind it but I'm not fazed when Jennifer Rubin or Wehner shriek about Cain's defects. Last month it was Perry who had them all in a tizzy.

He has a bachelor’s degree in mathematics, a master’s degree in computer science; he was a mathematician for the Navy (rocket scientist), a data systems analyst for Coca-Cola; he held various IT positions at Pillsbury; he was VP in charge of corporate data systems. "To me, that screams nerd."

Sadly foolish GOPers will try to fight political correctness will more political correctness. The Democrats have a "Magical Negro" and they think they need one too. Remember Obama defeated Alan Keys back in 2004.

"I asked him about the ballistics work he’d done for the Navy. Lotta differential equations? Oh, yeah. ODEs or PDEs? Mostly O’s—which is the right answer in ballistics. I recall thinking: Smart cookie. I doubt mathematical ability is directly relevant to a president’s tasks, but a guy who can do advanced math is a guy who can pursue chains of deductive reasoning for minutes at a time—rare in human beings."

he probably polls well with republican voters for the same reasons michael steele somehow became chairman of the republican national committee or the tea party fell all over themselves to feature all 12 africans at any national rally. since there are so few halfway capable guys who are african or even part african and who actually want to participate in conservative circles, it's just an instant push to the front for many of them.

they pushed a barely african liberal all the way to secretary of state. then he turned around and voted for obama. oh wait. that was twice!

now, cain's a lot better than those guys, an actual conservative and legitimate self made man, but whew, it's getting stupider by the minute in the US these days.

wonder if every election's just gonna be a push to the top for the least offensive african candidate. guys with no record at all - so they have no record to attack, and they're african too, so they essentially can't be attacked at all. friendly african guys with no serious experience become almost bulletproof candidates during the election cycle.

plugging away for 20 years and getting stuff done - the old dumb way to the white house. just showing up out of nowhere - the new smart way to the white house.

Are you kidding? Fox interviews him all the time; the MSM talk happily about the proposal that he run a third party candidacy in the general because they figure that would absolutely insure an Obama victory just as Perot insured a Clinton one.

No the the largely Jewish controlled media is ignoring Ron Paul because he is not pro-Israel enough (opposed war with Iraq, makes equivalencies between Isreal having a nuclear weapon and Iran having one, opposes foreign aid but doesn't make the mandatory exception for Israel). Paul was in third place for a long time but the media refused to talk about him. He recently gave an outstanding CNN debate performance, but when discussing the debate, none of the CNN pundits even mentioned him. Fox news will acknowledge him but only in the form of ridicule.

"Pillsbury 'promoted' Cain... as part of a strategy to defend itself against a racial discrimination suit."

Some of what Mr. Raskin says is worth noting, but other parts seem unconvincing. (Most obviously - even though everyone involved says Godfather's was just a throw-in to the Burger King deal, Raskin somehow senses that it was otherwise. FWIW, he seems to be coming from a leftist, not paleocon or HBD, viewpoint.)

I think there's a good chance that even if Cain originally did get his job from affirmative action, he did do a good job at CEO. Similar to Clarence Thomas - of course he got the job because Bush the First did not dare to appoint a non-black to Thurgood Marshall's seat, but (contrary to twenty years of slander) he has been a highly intelligent justice. Of course, if you start from the premise that every black man is incompetent, obviously nothing can convince you otherwise.

Keep in mind that I don't have anything against Cain. I don't pay enough attention to the candidates to have much of an opinion. It's just that the number of potential presidents is so large relative to the number of candidates who get any traction that it's worth noting what is it that distinguishes the candidate. Romney, for example, has likely been thinking about how to become President ever since his father's campaign flamed out in 1968.

Obama didn't win the election because he was black. The Democrats could have nominated a volunteer fireman from White Plains, NY and beaten the McCain/Palin ticket back in 2008.

I don't think anyone is saying that Obama beat McCain because he was black. They are saying that he would not have been the Democratic nominee had he not been black; i.e. he would not have beaten Hillary.

The Republicans already ran a black candidate, Alan Keyes, against Obama when he ran for senator. Didn't work very well for them. Now there's a chance they might repeat the same strategy, run a black against another black for the presidency as part of some strange racial outmaneuvering strategy. Our blacks are smarter than their blacks, so vote Repub.The Repubs may just be planning to take a dive and so there's a lot of posturing going on. Politics in the US is really at a very low point; it's all fundraising and kabuki.

Personality matters a lot in politics, and Cain has a forceful personality who taps in the anger of Americans. All the white guys seem like vanilla... except Ron Paul but he's too old, too cranky, and too dogmatic. Bachmann is a nutjob.

anon said:--Personality matters a lot in politics, and Cain has a forceful personality who taps in the anger of Americans. All the white guys seem like vanilla... except Ron Paul but he's too old, too cranky, and too dogmatic. Bachmann is a nutjob.--

bang on target. And Cain is intelligent, on the math component for sure.. more so than Obama who has no record of taking math/science subjects in college.. and more masculine as well, besides being more black.

Herman Cain proves to me that unfortunately a large, cohesive, dumb fraction of conservative America isn't motivated by racism so much as by a charming, theatrically mediocre mind having the power of the Presidency. It's the Reagan/Bush Jr./Cain thread of the modern Republican party. More charming dummy beats less charming dummy, but dumber charming guy also beats smarter charming guy with this crowd, it seems to me.

I don't think it's his blackness so much as his absolute dumbness (or at least the absolute dumbness of the character he plays) that vaulted Cain over Perry and Bachmann with non-Romneyite Republicans.

"I asked him about the ballistics work he’d done for the Navy. Lotta differential equations? Oh, yeah. ODEs or PDEs? Mostly O’s—which is the right answer in ballistics. I recall thinking: Smart cookie. I doubt mathematical ability is directly relevant to a president’s tasks, but a guy who can do advanced math is a guy who can pursue chains of deductive reasoning for minutes at a time—rare in human beings."

Perhaps I underestimate Cain's IQ. If a guy that smart can so convincingly play average IQ, he may be a legitimate poliical threat. Hopefully his nutty, nontechnocratic policy claims are also game, and he'll do things that seem smart to me like socialize healthcare make the tax system more rational when in office?

I am also of the camp that a macrosocial leader should be highly mathematically literate. He may not be a Bates Medal winner, but I think someone with clear ability @ applied ODE math would be a technocratic ratchet up over recent Presidents

If Cain gets the nomination, the GOP could even argue they were the first major party to run a black at the top of the ticket. One could argue that Obama has too much white heritage to be considered black by objective standards. Michelle however will remain the first black first lady.

Because it is just so typical for a black guy to get a B.S. in mathematics, a M.S. in computer science, put his skills to work for the Navy and then corporations, work his way up the corporate ladder with one success after another, and to never ever join the ethnic grievance business. Such a black guy is *exactly* like our current president. Any accolades he wins among whites is just because of the color of his skin.

Whether or not Cain should be president, this post is a big fail, Steve.

"Putting Romney on the ticket will be electoral suicide. Trust me on this."

I fear you might be right. The really bad thing is that the alternative is Perry, and trust me, he can't win the Indies and the Reagan democrats in the numbers he needs them, the primary reason being he is simply not far enough removed from that other Texan that was President for 8 years.

"I asked him about the ballistics work he’d done for the Navy. Lotta differential equations? Oh, yeah.ODEs or PDEs? Mostly O’s—which is the right answer in ballistics. I recall thinking: Smart cookie. I doubt mathematical ability is directly relevant to a president’s tasks, but a guy who can do advanced math is a guy who can pursue chains of deductive reasoning for minutes at a time—rare in human beings."

Yeah, I read that a while back. His math ability likely puts Obama to shame, yet the libs, black and white alike, don't even know this guy's background.

Of course, the success of Herman Cain is proof that Republicans are just as likely as Democrats to engage in racial pandering. I think it also helps to explain Romney's biggest problem: he's too white for many Republicans to openly support for fear of being accused of racism. Even criticisms of Romney for being a Mormon are just a smoke screen since the Mormons are probably the whitest Christian group in the country.

There was a time I had respect for McWhorter, but if he said this (I don't feel like watching all 45 minutes of the video), it's the final straw for me.

Over the last few years, I realized that McWhorter clearly doesn't keep up with the data that Steve does, and when he does per chance look at it, he can't separate out his bias. That's not a crime as we all have a bias, but for one who claims to be able to reason, he has shown that in the area of race, he simply can't. It's too emotionally loaded for him to do so.

The field of candidates sucks, and Herman Cain has said some things that jive with the common GOP voter. Hopefully this is the sign that GOP voters are actually starting to look at their candidates, and aren't just going to vote in lockstep for the establishment nominee.

There is still time for him to torpedo himself. I remain convinced that Perry has it however.

With Cain, GOP doesn't just have a black guy. As Jim Goad said in Taki, GOP has a black guy who is blacker than Obama.

Oh, yeah. Among other things, unlike Obama, he SOUNDS black. I think that will turn out to be a handicap once we get into the primaries. Racial discrimination is not black-and-white, no pun intended. There will be people who were OK with a black guy who sounds and acts white (and has a distinctive bi-racial look) who will hesitate to vote for a guy who is as decidedly black as HC. They may not even admit it to themselves - finding other excuses to oppose Cain - much less to pollsters, but it will eat into his numbers. There aren't enough black Republicans to balance out this group.

Just because GOP is the white party does't mean it's a pro-white party. It's white more by happenstance than by intention

The GOP is "white" only by contrast with the Democrats. In reality the two parties tend to split the white vote pretty evenly, with a slight tilt towards the Republicans. The Democrats win the non-white vote by a landslide every time.

Cain was a good Burger King regional manager promoted to Godfathers' head most likely to soften affirmative action claims, such as the contemporaneous Mabone v. Pillsbury Co. suit.

He failed to meet Pillsbury projections and bought Godfathers from Pillsbury at a fire sale price. After being forced to resign about five years later, he moved on to success as a professional black, promoted by the Koch Brothers under the politically useful "black conservative" brand.

He has demonstrated time and again that he doesn't know one thing about how government works. Watch any video of him.

"His" 9-9-9 tax plan would deliver the coup de grace to the middle class, turning America even more toward a Brazilian model - i.e., peasant-versus-billionaire.

A leftist Jew in Florida, Jay Raskin, is the only one looking into Cain's record. The MSM is AWOL.

"The Republicans already ran a black candidate, Alan Keyes, against Obama when he ran for senator. Didn't work very well for them."

Yes, but the main problem for Alan Keyes is that he was Alan Keyes - the second problem was that the GOP has screwed up so royally in the running for that seat that there was no way they could win (the previous candidate dropped out relatively late in the game because he wanted to have sex with his wife, 7 of 9, in front of an audience). At the time he was picked to run, it was clear that there was no point trying to find a serious candidate.

Out of thousands of hours of airtime it's easy to cherry pick examples where fox news has treated Ron Paul fairly, but the totality of coverage has been either negative or dismissive especially compared to other candidates. They have neocons like krauthhammer saying he'll never be president, while taking seriously neocon puppets like Michelle bachmann. They have neocon puppets like bill oreilly and Sean hannity (the 2 highest rated shows on fox news) dismissing or mocking Paul regularly. Fox tries to placate paul's supporters by having him on their low rated shows but even there they often gang up against him or ambush him with formidable debate partners. Fox is not a conservative network, it is a neocon network, no better than the NY Times.

network television only began to acknowledge ron paul's existence within the last year. before that, he absolutely, positively was treated to the blackout treatment not only from liberal leaning media sources but from the few nominally conservative leaning outlets as well. because, well, duh. he opposes the neocon agenda. in the 2008 campaign he was so totally blacked out and deleted from existance it was hilarious.

both camps are less hostile towards him now i think, because they've seen him for years at this point and he's stuck between 3rd and 5th in all the polls. not a genuine threat to win the republican nomination in 2012, so they'll grant him some time and coverage these days.

More than Ron Paul, I find Ron Paul supporters to be extremely annoying. They are out there on the web on any forum, posting anti-anyone-else-who-leads-in-the-polls if there is a tangential relevance (lately on posts having to do with Herman Cain). Face it, RP's time has passed. He is an interesting guy but, at best, can be a third party candidate spoiler. He loses his cool rather easily and goes on rants in debates (which doesn't help his cause). Being 76 years old isn't a plus either. There are 3 folks in serious contention: Romney, Cain, and Newt. Ron Paul has no chance of getting in the top two slots, despite the evident enthusiasm of his supporters who seem to inhabit their unique reality distortion field. Cain is 11 years younger, has gravitas, is likable, projects competence, has a sense of humor (mark of intelligence), and is black.

Herman Cain has no problems in interacting with msm liberal media (including MSNBC, there are videos out there). He has an entire hour in which to implode in CBS face the nation on Sunday. Definitely some of the stuff he says will be respun and he may make gaffes. But overall, I don't expect such exposure to have negative impact (it will increase name recognition). HC will be debating Newt (the most intellectual of the lot) one-on-one in an extended debate format in Nov. This is gutsy and if he can pass that test, it will be something. Net-Net, HC is a risk taker and is the most interesting of the line-up (Christie would have been more interesting).

In the McWhorter video, skip ahead to 10:50 to see him call Steve a "professional racist". Listen to the entire section to see/hear McWhorter embarass himself, claiming things Steve would never say as something he would say. I wonder if McWhorter is familiar with something as simple as the term "normally distributed." The entire discussion is pretty worthless. I thought the chick brought zero to the table.

Re: The piece by Saskin, I thought it was meticulously put together and was damning of Cain's managerial ability at that level. Perhaps he hit his "Peter Principle" level while being a regional manager for Burger King. In any case, Saskin does a good job refuting the claim he was a turnaround artist. An effective manager, perhaps at BK? Sure. But not a miracle worker as is often claimed. Finally, check his comments section for why he got the seat on the KC Fed. Who loaned him the $$ to buy Godfather's? (Citibank.) Who better to have as your proxy on the KC Fed, than someone you own? Well played Citibank.

@glavister, re: "the previous candidate dropped out relatively late in the game because he wanted to have sex with his wife, 7 of 9, in front of an audience"

You forgot to mention why those details became public. Someone leaked sealed grand jury testimony that sunk Ryan's campaign. He was seen as the favorite in that race v. Obama and a rising Republican star until the testimony was released.

""He has a bachelor’s degree in mathematics, a master’s degree in computer science;""

He went to Morehouse College, a Historically Black College. I believe the curriculum is a bit different there. He studied maffuhmaddix and computronics."

It is true that a degree from Morehouse does not necessarily mean that much, although at that time, in the 60s, their curriculum was probably more rigorous than it is now. However, Cain got his masters degree in computer science from Purdue - not too shabby. I have no problem believing that he is comfortably above average in the smarts department.

It's true that they interview him, although not as much as they interview Karl Rove and other hack operatives from the Bush administration. However, Paul's treatment in the debates has been abysmal. They don't ask many questions of him. In the last debate - I didn't see it - I understand that he was not even given the chance to make a closing statement, as every other single participant was given.

The debates themselves are pointless shams. The tone of them is set, not by the candidates, but by the moderators, and most of them are probably democrats. Why would any real conservative candidate consent to be questioned by the likes of Anderson Cooper - a liberal, homosexual talking-head for CNN, who referred to the tea-partiers as "tea-baggers" on the air.

Imagine how much different the debates would be if the questions were being asked by Pat Buchanan, or even P.J. O'Rourke, i.e. by someone who is actually likely to vote for a Republican.

Notice to Mr. Whorter: discussion of HBD is no longer confined to whispers in faculty lounges and postings on blogs--

from Peter Frost's Evo and Proud blog today:

"Human biodiversity is slowly making headway in academia. It has three defining principles:

1. Evolution did not end, or even slow down, with the advent of Homo sapiens. It has actually accelerated.

2. It especially accelerated about 10,000 years ago, when the rate of genetic change rose over a hundred-fold among early modern humans. This acceleration didn’t happen because they were spreading into new physical environments with different climates, topographies, vegetation, and wildlife. By then, humans had already spread throughout the world from the equator to the arctic. They were now spreading into new cultural environments with different technologies, social structures, belief systems, and means of subsistence.

3. The human species has therefore experienced more genetic change over the past 10,000 years than over the previous million years. This change has particularly involved genes for mental, behavioral, and life-history traits (Frost, 2011; Hawks et al., 2007).

There is this weird notion on the GOP right that a candidate needs to do the Mitch Daniels trudge through the cursus honorum before he can be taken seriously... That gives you data on the guy, sure, but in reality every President gets there by seizing the fluke moment. In 1965 the prospect of Nixon in the White House would've been laughable.

Cain's a bit more committed to the party establishment than, say, Schwarzenegger was, but the fact he flopped as a candidate under previous conditions is getting him branded as untested & inexperienced. Sorry, Eisenhower's not running. This is Cain's opening, same as Obama had his. Unlike O no one's groomed Cain for 4 years leading up to the election. By all means, raise objections to his lack of Foreign Policy Vision (tsk tsk) but he'll sink or swim on his own. Historical forces.

The human species has therefore experienced more genetic change over the past 10,000 years than over the previous million years. This change has particularly involved genes for mental, behavioral, and life-history traits (Frost, 2011; Hawks et al., 2007).

Hogwash! There's no evidence that brain size has increased in the last 10,000 years. If anything the brain has got smaller because since the advent of agriculture, there's enough food that even the dumbest of the dumb can survive and breed. In the previous million years brain size increased by 50% as we evolved from homo erects to modern humans, so don't give me this nonsense about the last 10,000 years being so important. From an HBD perspective, the most significant period was when humans split into Africans and non-Africans and the non-Africans were exposed to freezing temperatures for the first time, causing the evolution of greater brain size and intelligence.

You forgot to mention why those details became public. Someone leaked sealed grand jury testimony that sunk Ryan's campaign. He was seen as the favorite in that race v. Obama and a rising Republican star until the testimony was released.

I left that out because it was not relevant to the point I was making - that the selection of Alan Keyes to run against Obama made sense in context (we'll lose anyway, so let's run a black guy, and let's sacrifice a guy who is not going to go anywhere anyway); and that Keyes' landslide loss has little relevance to Herman Cain's candidacy.

But bringing that up, "someone leaked" is rather euphemistic. A corrupt judge, Judge Robert Schnider, ordered those records released against the requests of both parties in the legal proceedings. This was hardly done in the dark; this was brazen corruption by an official.

It's true that they interview him, although not as much as they interview Karl Rove""

Sheeeez. Rove is a paid Fox contributor, you twit."

And - Mr. Anonymous Nitwit - Paul is a presidential candidate who has sparked a large national movement, whereas Rove is a political hack and a weasel, whose prescriptions have been poison for the Republican party.

I'm not even much of a Paul supporter. I don't like his stance, or rather his non-stance, on immigration. But it is pretty obvious that he is being given the bum's rush.

"Hogwash! There's no evidence that brain size has increased in the last 10,000 years. If anything the brain has got smaller because since the advent of agriculture, there's enough food that even the dumbest of the dumb can survive and breed."

Twit-Did Frost say brain size has increased or did he say over the last 10,000 years there's been more change than in the previous existence of the species in areas of mental and behavioral traits?

Yeah, duh, it's BECAUSE of agriculture that so much in the way of cognition (and other areas) our species has changed. At least you sound as if you might have read Hawks and Cochran.

BTW, Frost has interesting posts on brain size variation, if you care to check him out.

I think Steve's instinct to reach for race as a universal explanation has blinded him to the obvious. The American electorate has moved further to the left. Much further. If Jesse Jackson had run in 2008, sans the additional baggage he has taken on since 1988, he could have won the Democratic nomination. Note that while a majority of the population identifies as conservative, only a minority subscribes to traditionally conservative views. So while more Americans say they are conservative, fewer Americans actually are conservative by the standards of 1988.

Uh, yeah, I guess I'll repeat it: in Great Society 1965 the prospect of a Nixon White House was laughable. He'd lost as the "formidable challenger" in the 1962 California gubernatorial race (there was a speech associated with that one, remember?) and became for all purposes inactive following the '64 wipeout, a younger equivalent of Newt Gingrich circa 2008. Not until the Democrats' civil rights confusion and post-Tet bungles turned into daily headlines did Nixon overtake Nelson Rockefeller, to say nothing of Romney Sr.

Yeah, duh, it's BECAUSE of agriculture that so much in the way of cognition (and other areas) our species has changed. At least you sound as if you might have read Hawks and Cochran.

Rising brain size has been the pattern of human evolution. Brain size has tripled in the last 3 million years, so it seems odd to argue that in the last 10,000 years there has been an explosion of human (cognitive) evolution, when brain size has either stagnated or declined since the pre-agriculture era.

I read the book "the 10,000 year explosion" and while it was interesting and informative, it was politically correct and cowardly. It carefully sidestepped any discussion about racial differences in IQ except where it was safe (Ashkenazi Jews are smarter than whites).

I tend to think that agriculture is more a product of cognitive evolution than the cause of it. As Richard Lynn explained, it was only after humans had been through the latest wurm glaciation that they were intelligent enough to take advantage of wild grasses. If agriculture had been the cause of a sudden explosion in intellectual change, why no corresponding explosion in brain size? Unless the cognitive change you mean is dysgenic, in which case you could argue that brain size has decreased; indeed most domesticated animals see a decline in brain size, perhaps because domestication makes us docile and dumb, unlike hunter gathers who had to survive on their wits.

On the other hand, agricultural peoples seem to be 1 SD smarter than their hunter gatherer of the similar racial stock. Most negroids average IQ 67, but bushmen and pygmies average IQ 55. Most pure mongoloids average IQ 105, but arctic peoples average IQ 91. This may suggest that evolving to an agricultural lifestyle added 1 sd of IQ but given no post agriculture rise in brain size, it probably suggests that only the smartest tribes in each race where able to discover/learn agriculture. However given the fact that arctic brain size is much larger than their 91 IQ would imply, it may simply suggest that IQ tests are biased against hunter/ gatherers since you need to be domesticated before sitting at a desk and focusing on a test.

But perhaps I'm making too much of brain size. Agriculture increased population size which increased the probability of brain mutations, so perhaps post-agriculture evolution found a way to increase intelligence without having to make the brain too large for safe childbirth.

With the unfunny snark that Truth throws out, I'm starting to think he's a Yenta from Long Island.

Dan in DC

Using his own logic, he's a loser.

Mark my words very carefully.

Southern Evangelical Christians will never vote for a Mormon. I know these people, I grew up around them, I know how they think. They will not vote Romney. From the looks of things, Christians in the Mid-West aren't biting either.

Putting Romney on the ticket will be electoral suicide. Trust me on this.

You keep saying this, but you're going to have to do the math for me. How will it result in electoral suicide? What parts of the board does it put into play that would be safe otherwise?

Cain seems pretty smart, I would put a masters in computer science at Purdue well above all but the very brightest law school graduates in terms of brainpower. Sure he's not Donald Knuth or Seymour Cray or John McCarthy but who in politics would be? Cain could definitely be a problem for Obama in a debate, although I think Gingrich or Paul would be even more so. The problem is that no one in the media is going to give any positive attention to the latter two, particularly Paul. Paul is denigrated for wanting to talk ideas in a debate, as opposed to endless personal attacks, which is what most of the rest of the GOP presidential field except Gingrich does. If Paul were a Democrat who wanted to talk issues he would be praised effusively be liberal intellectual types.

Here's the Google Wallet FAQ. From it: "You will need to have (or sign up for) Google Wallet to send or receive money. If you have ever purchased anything on Google Play, then you most likely already have a Google Wallet. If you do not yet have a Google Wallet, don’t worry, the process is simple: go to wallet.google.com and follow the steps." You probably already have a Google ID and password, which Google Wallet uses, so signing up Wallet is pretty painless.

You can put money into your Google Wallet Balance from your bank account and send it with no service fee.

Google Wallet works from both a website and a smartphone app (Android and iPhone -- the Google Wallet app is currently available only in the U.S., but the Google Wallet website can be used in 160 countries).

Or, once you sign up with Google Wallet, you can simply send money via credit card, bank transfer, or Wallet Balance as an attachment from Google's free Gmail email service. Here'show to do it.

(Non-tax deductible.)

Fourth: if you have a Wells Fargo bank account, you can transfer money to me (with no fees) via Wells Fargo SurePay. Just tell WF SurePay to send the money to my ancient AOL email address steveslrATaol.com -- replace the AT with the usual @). (Non-tax deductible.)

Fifth: if you have a Chase bank account (or, theoretically,other bank accounts), you can transfer money to me (with no fees) via Chase QuickPay (FAQ). Just tell Chase QuickPay to send the money to my ancient AOL email address (steveslrATaol.com -- replace the AT with the usual @). If Chase asks for the name on my account, it's Steven Sailer with an n at the end of Steven. (Non-tax deductible.)

My Book:

"Steve Sailer gives us the real Barack Obama, who turns out to be very, very different - and much more interesting - than the bland healer/uniter image stitched together out of whole cloth this past six years by Obama's packager, David Axelrod. Making heavy use of Obama's own writings, which he admires for their literary artistry, Sailer gives the deepest insights I have yet seen into Obama's lifelong obsession with 'race and inheritance,' and rounds off his brilliant character portrait with speculations on how Obama's personality might play out in the Presidency." - John Derbyshire Author, "Prime Obsession: Bernhard Riemann and the Greatest Unsolved Problem in Mathematics" Click on the image above to buy my book, a reader's guide to the new President's autobiography.